Workplace Law Predictions For 2019

Courtesy of Fisher Phillips LLP

2018 has seen quite a few changes in labor and employment law. But with the New Year having just rung in, it’s time to look forward rather than backward. The question on the tip of everyone’s tongue is: what’s next? Here are our predictions for what to expect in 2019 when it comes to workplace law.

Expect More Class Actions

We’re going to start out with the bad news. Because of the potential for a big payout, class and collective actions are a favorite for plaintiffs’ attorneys. You should not expect that to change in 2019.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation has opened up even more avenues for potential wage and hour claims in the Golden State, and the trend could hit the rest of the country, too. In July 2018, the California Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the de minimus doctrine under state law and held that employees must be paid for off-the-clock work that regularly lasts several minutes per day. While the California Supreme Court refused to shut the door entirely on the de minimus doctrine, it noted that technological advances should help employers track small bits of time, and that employers can restructure work to avoid off-the-clock time.

Employers outside of California may see plaintiffs’ attorneys attempting to use the same rationale employed by the California Supreme Court to argue that the de minimus doctrine should not apply in the circumstances of their case. Moreover, with more employees having remote access to emails and other mobile platforms, the number of ways for employees to argue that they were working off the clock has increased. 

The Ascendance Of Arbitration Agreements 

One way for employers to avoid class actions is through arbitration agreements. Last May, the Supreme Court ruled in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis that mandatory class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable. As a result, you can expect to see an increase in the number of companies rolling out updated agreements to include class action waiver language. (Note: if you have not had your arbitration agreement reviewed since May when Epic Systems came out, make it your New Year’s Resolution to do so.)

However, while popular with employers, arbitration agreements are decidedly not so with the plaintiffs’ bar. Expect to see plaintiffs’ counsel becoming more creative in challenging arbitration agreements on grounds related to unconscionability. 

We may even be starting to see a backlash against arbitration agreements. Most recently, some law students have been pressuring big law firms to do away with them when it comes to their own hires. And last year, the California legislature passed a law banning mandatory employment arbitration agreements for claims arising out of alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or California Labor Code. Although the bill was ultimately vetoed by outgoing Governor Jerry Brown, expect to see the fight continue in 2019.

Don’t Look To Congress To Lead The Way

With Democrats controlling the House, and Republicans controlling the Senate and Executive Branch, you can expect that most employment legislation will be dead on arrival. When it comes to innovative legislation impacting the workplace, you should look to the states to lead the way. This is not to say that there won’t be any changes to labor and employment law on the federal level in 2019. However, we expect the most significant changes to be made by agencies (such as the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, etc.) rather than Congress.

NLRB Will Narrow The Definition Of Joint Employer

One of those agencies—the NLRB—made noise last year when it published a proposed rule that would alter the definition of joint employment to make it more difficult to hold multiple businesses responsible for alleged labor and employment law violations by staffing companies, franchisees, and other related organizations. Expect to see continued movement and updates on this proposed rule in 2019. 

But before getting too excited at any potential changes, you should keep in mind that states may have their own rules regarding joint employment that could differ from what the NLRB comes up with. Any new rules may not affect your organization’s liability under state law.

USDOL Has A Full Plate

Another agency you should keep an eye on is the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL).  Not only is the USDOL considering its own joint employment rule, but the agency has proposed regulations regarding the regular rate of pay and white collar exemptions (also known as the “overtime” rule). 

The regular rate of pay is of particular importance to employers because it is used to calculate the overtime rate of non-exempt employees. While we know that changes to the proposed regulations are targeting sections 7(e)(2) and 7(g)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the USDOL has been rather vague about what the proposed regulations will look like. The USDOL states that they aim to “provide employers more flexibility in the compensation and benefits packages they offer employees” and “lessen litigation regarding the regular rate.”   

The regulation relating to the white collar exemption is less opaque. As employers may recall, the minimum salary threshold for white collar exemptions was supposed to increase from $455 per week (or $23,660 annually) to $913 per week (or $47,476 annually), with the amount to be updated every three years. However, right before these changes were scheduled to take effect in December 2016, a federal court blocked their implementation. Under a new administration, we expect that we will see a more modest proposed increase in the white collar exemption in 2019—perhaps in the low $600s per week. 

Paid Sick Leave Will Continue To Be On Trend

Although there are no federal laws mandating paid sick leave (yet), you can expect that paid sick and family leave will continue to be a big issues, with states and localities picking up the slack. Right now, 11 states and the District of Columbia require paid sick leave. Additionally, various cities and counties have stepped in where states have not provided for such leave or to give more generous benefits than the state. 

You generally should anticipate an expansion of paid sick leave benefits in 2019. The New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Act went into effect October, while Michigan, Washington, and Westchester County (NY) have paid sick leave laws going into effect this year. 

While some municipalities in Texas want to get in on this trend, a Texas appeals courtruled the Austin Paid Sick Leave Ordinance violates the state constitution because it preempts the Texas Minimum Wage Act. San Antonio passed its own sick leave ordinance in 2018, but it may only be a matter of time before it, too, is challenged in court. 

Privacy Issues Remain Paramount

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect in May 2018, ushering in sweeping reforms for companies that do business in the EU or employ EU residents. The GDPR threatens strict penalties for non-compliance—up to the greater of 20 million Euro or 4 percent of global annual turnover in the prior year. Having been in effect less than a year, it is still not clear how fines will be assessed and what the potential exposure will be for companies that are found to be non-compliant. As 2019 progresses, you can expect to see many investigations that began in 2018 come to a close, and we’ll begin to get a better idea of how regulatory authorities will assess fines for non-compliance—including whether the fearsome 4 percent penalty will be assessed.   

Lest you think the major developments in privacy are safely across the ocean in Europe, you can be sure there will be plenty of action closer to home in 2019. The Illinois Supreme Court currently has a case before it over whether a technical violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Act (BIPA) gives standing to sue absent a person suffering a concrete injury. If the court answers in the affirmative, you can expect to see a continued proliferation of BIPA class actions.

Further, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in 2018, which goes into effect at the beginning of 2020. While the law is not as comprehensive as the GDPR, California employers will soon need to figure out this year if it applies to them. You should take compliance seriously: the CCPA allows consumers whose rights have been violated under the Act to bring suit for actual damages or statutory penalties (whichever is greater) under a mechanism somewhat akin to a California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. You can expect the proliferation of CCPA lawsuits will be on next year’s list of predictions. 

 

5 Employee Handbook Updates to Watch in 2018

When was the last time the company handbook was reviewed? It’s a worthy priority for the new year—or anytime, really. Handbooks are living documents that should be reviewed regularly, especially considering the federal government’s focus on deregulation and ever-changing updates from state legislatures and municipalities. Here are five key issues that may trigger updates:

1. Workplace conduct and social media

Under former President Barack Obama, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) scrutinized social media policies and other workplace conduct standards that may limit workers’ rights. For example, in many cases the board considered employee social media posts that are critical of employers a form of protected concerted activity and thus not necessarily grounds for disciplinary action. 

With the Trump administration, the pendulum may swing the opposite way, giving employers more leeway to develop workplace conduct rules, said Bruce Sarchet, an attorney with Littler in Sacramento.

Already, the board overruled its previous standard that struck down policies if they could be “reasonably construed” to curb employee discussions about wages and working conditions—even if the policies weren’t intended to do so. “With [the] signal of a sea change in NLRB policy, employers need to pay close attention to the board’s new ‘policies on policies’ as they develop,” said Bonnie Martin, an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in Indianapolis. In the meantime, make sure your handbook’s conduct guidelines are specific and clear. 

2. Sexual harassment 

Revised EEO-1 Report Blocked by White House

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced late Tuesday (8/29/17)  that it was implementing an immediate stay of the revised EEO-1 Report, putting a halt to long-awaited pay data reporting requirements. The stay creates much needed relief for employers, but is expected to further refocus pay equity discussions on a statewide and local level.

Quick Recap Of Pay Data Reporting

Historically, employers with 100 or more employees, and federal contractors with 50 or more employees, have been required to submit Employer Information Reports (EEO-1 Reports) disclosing the number of employees by job category, race, sex, and ethnicity annually. Last year, the EEOC finalized proposed changes to the EEO-1 Report which would require employers to include pay data and the number of hours worked in their reporting. The proposed reporting expansion was intended to identify pay gaps, which the agency could then use to target specific employers and investigate pay discrimination practices.

The revised form, revealed in October 2016, required employers to submit the newly requested data based on a “workforce snapshot” of any pay period between October 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 and was due to be submitted by March 31, 2018.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many other observers identified serious flaws in the proposed rule. Following pushback by numerous business groups, the EEOC announced it would issue a second set of revisions to the form. However, the revisions encompassed only two minor changes and failed to alleviate significant employer concerns. Businesses across the country had thus been preparing to usher in a new day when it came to having their pay practices placed under a federal microscope, and until yesterday, it appeared inevitable that the disclosure would proceed as planned.

Feds Press Pause On Pay Data Reporting

All of that changed yesterday with the announcement from the federal government. In issuing an immediate stay of the revised EEO-1 report, the OMB voiced its own concerns with the revised reporting requirements. The office announced: “…[we are] concerned that some aspects of the revised collection of information lack practical utility, are unnecessarily burdensome, and do not adequately address privacy and confidentiality issues.”

Employers are still required to submit EEO-1 Reports using the previously approved form. The deadline for submission of 2017 data remains March 31, 2018. However, employers can breathe a sigh of relief when it comes to the proposed expanded pay data reporting requirements – for now.

Whether this development foreshadows the ultimate demise of the revised EEO-1 Report is currently unclear. However, national attention on wage inequities remains despite yesterday’s announcement, and the focus on pay equity enforcement is increasingly shifting to state and local levels. States like California, New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada, and others have all passed pay equity legislation in the last year. Consequently, with each state acting as its own incubator for how to best address these disparities, pay equity analysis and related litigation is becoming more complicated.

Landmark Appeals Court Ruling Extends Title VII Protections To LGBT Employees

Late yesterday (4/4/17), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal court of appeals in the nation to rule that sexual orientation claims are actionable under Title VII. Their decision opened the door for LGBT plaintiffs to use Title VII to seek relief for allegations of employment discrimination and retaliation.

The April 4th ruling is important to employers because it broadens the class of potential plaintiffs who can bring workplace claims against them, and will require employers to ensure fair and equal treatment to all applicants and workers regardless of their sexual orientation (Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College).

Background: What Does Title VII Cover?

The initial aim of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to protect employees from race discrimination in the workplace. Just before it was enacted, however, Congress added a provision prohibiting discrimination based on “sex.” Initially, federal courts took the position that “sex” should be interpreted narrowly.  

However, over the years, plaintiffs have sought a much broader interpretation of what should be covered as sex discrimination. Following the landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision which made same-sex marriage legal across the country, federal courts have grappled with determining which types of claims are actionable under the “sex” provision of Title VII. Meanwhile, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a July 2015 administrative decision ruling that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII” (Baldwin v. Foxx).

Although this decision involved a federal employee and was only binding on federal employers, other lower federal courts have discussed the rationale behind the EEOC’s conclusion and seemed ready to adopt the same approach. Indeed, on November 4, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania agreed with the EEOC and held that sexual orientation falls within the protection of Title VII (EEOC v. Scott Medical Center). However, no federal appellate court went that far – until now.

Employee Loses First Two Rounds Of Her Battle

Kimberly Hively began working as a part-time adjunct professor for Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend, Indiana in 2000. She worked there for 14 years until her part-time employment contract was not renewed in 2014. During her employment, she applied for six full-time positions but claims never to have even been offered an interview, even though she said she had all the necessary qualifications and had never even received a negative evaluation.

Hively filed a federal lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII, and in 2015, the trial court dismissed her case. She appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (which oversees federal courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin), which initially agreed with the lower court by upholding the dismissal of her claim in July 2016.

The three-person panel of judges indicated that it had no choice but to deny Hively’s claim after reviewing a string of cases stretching back almost 40 years from across the country.  The panel concluded that no other federal appellate court had decided that sexual orientation discrimination is covered under Title VII. The judges noted that we live in “a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act,” but indicated they were all but powerless to rule otherwise absent a Supreme Court directive or a congressional amendment to Title VII.

But Wins Crucial Third Round

In October 2016, the full collection of 7th Circuit judges set aside the ruling and agreed to re-hear the case en banc, which means all the judges would hear the case together. Late yesterday, the en banc panel issued a final ruling overturning its initial decision by an 8 to 3 vote and breathing new life into Hively’s case. More importantly, however, the 7th Circuit created a new cause of action under Title VII for other LGBT employees in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

In the opinion, drafted by Chief Judge Wood, the court concluded that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of discrimination” and that it “would require considerable calisthenics” to remove the “sex” from “sexual orientation” when applying Title VII. In addition, the court noted that efforts to do so had led to confusing and contradictory results.  

In the end, the court concluded that the practical realities of life necessitated that it reverse its prior decision. It remanded Hively’s case back to the trial court for a new hearing under this broad new standard.

What This Means For Employers

Employers in Illinois and Wisconsin are already subject to state laws protecting private workers based on sexual orientation, so yesterday’s decision should simply reaffirm their commitment to ensuring fairness and equality for these employees. For private employers in Indiana, however, the time is now to take proactive steps to ensure sexual orientation is treated the same as any other protected class – this includes reviewing your written policies, handbooks, training sessions, workplace investigations, hiring methods, discipline and discharge procedures, and all other aspects of your human resources activities.

As for employers in the rest of the country, it appears likely that yesterday’s ruling will be followed by decisions in other circuit courts similarly extending Title VII rights to cover sexual orientation. In fact, the plaintiff in a prominent case recently decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (hearing cases from Florida, Georgia, Alabama) has indicated she could seek a full en banc review of her case in the hopes of extending Title VII to cover LGBT workers in that circuit. It would not be surprising for the Hively case to be the first in a series of dominoes that brings about a new day for Title VII litigation across the country.

We can expect to see further judicial rulings in the coming years fleshing out this issue in more detail. For example, one issue not addressed by the 7th Circuit is how this new theory will affect religious institutions given that different standards apply to them under federal antidiscrimination laws. These and other considerations will be debated in courts across the country in the near future.

Even if these appeals court decisions do not immediately materialize, there are two other avenues whereby employers could still face immediate liability for such claims. The first is through state law. Almost half of the states in the country have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in employment (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin), and some additional states protect state workers from such discrimination (Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia).

Second, plaintiffs have successfully argued to various federal courts that Title VII sex discrimination covers claims where plaintiffs allege mistreatment based on gender non-conformity actions. This includes situations where employers are alleged to have discriminated against workers for failing to live up to stereotypical gender norms. Courts have noted that drawing a line that separates these “sex-stereotyping” claims from pure sexual orientation claims is “exceptionally difficult” because the distinction is often “elusive,” meaning that employers anywhere could face a Title VII claim akin to sexual orientation discrimination that would be accepted as valid by a federal court no matter what the federal appeals courts say. This concept was discussed in the 11th Circuit’s recent Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital decision, and the court in fact permitted the plaintiff to proceed with her case on a stereotyping theory.

While possible that the Supreme Court or Congress will step in and reverse this trend, as a recent court stated, “it seems unlikely that our society can continue to condone a legal structure in which employees can be fired, harassed, demeaned, singled out for undesirable tasks, paid lower wages, demoted, passed over for promotions, and otherwise discriminated against solely based on who they date, love, or marry.” Employers should take heed and prepare for what appears to be an inevitable extension of workplace protection rights for LGBT workers based on their sexual orientation.

Employers May Soon Be Forced To Reveal Pay Information By Gender

Businesses With 100 Or More Workers Would Be Subject To Proposed New Law Aimed At Combating Gender Discrimination

The federal government announced at the end of January 2016 its intent to gather additional pay information from larger employers, forcing all businesses with over 100 workers to provide detailed information about their pay practices in an effort to address gender discrimination. If the President’s plan moves forward as expected, employers will be subject to a heightened pay transparency standard by the end of this calendar year.

What Has Been Proposed?

The Obama Administration has proposed executive action through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to require certain businesses to provide detailed information about how much each of their employees is earning. Affected employers must break down pay information by gender, as well as race and ethnicity, after the law goes into effect in order to make it very easy to identify pay gaps.

Who Will Be Impacted?

This executive action will apply to all businesses that employ 100 or more workers. According to the White House, the proposal would cover more than 63 million Americans.

How Will Employers Report The Information?

Currently all employers with 100 or more workers already complete the EEO-1 form on an annual basis, providing demographic information to the government about race, gender, and ethnicity. Once the new revisions take effect, the EEO-1 form will also require that salary and pay information be included.

Why Has The Government Proposed This Change?

The federal government has specifically stated that the goal of this additional data-gathering is to identify businesses that might have pay gaps, and then target those employers who are discriminating on account of gender. It is no coincidence that this plan was announced on the seventh anniversary of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a federal law that overturned a Supreme Court decision and made it easier for employees to bring equal pay claims.

In other words, once this new law takes hold, the EEOC will have greater ease in identifying disparities and areas of potential pay discrimination to determine where it will take enforcement action.

When Will Employers Be Subject To The New Law?

If the proposal proceeds as scheduled, the draft revisions would be available for inspection and public comment between February 1, 2016 and April 1, 2016. The EEOC Chair has stated that she anticipates the rulemaking process to be completed by September 2016, when the new rules would officially go into effect. If this holds true, employers will have to submit their pay data for the first time in September 2017.

What Should Employers Do Now?

In light of these developments, affected companies should make it a priority to review current pay systems and identify and address any areas of pay disparity. It is critical to take steps now to minimize increased scrutiny once the data begins to be reported next year.

By conducting your own gender-specific audit of pay practices, you will be able to determine whether any pay gaps exist that might catch the eye of the federal government when you turn over this information next year. You will have time to determine whether any disparities that may exist can be justified by legitimate and non-discriminatory explanations, or whether you will need to take corrective action to address troublesome pay gaps.

EEOC Report 1 Due by September 30th

If you employed more than 100 people in the preceding calendar year, you are required to complete and submit your EEOC Report 1 (Survey) by September 30th. You should have received a reminder letter via mail from the EEOC in August also with the link to file the report online.

Please contact our office for information about the EEOC Report 1 or for the link to the EEOC’s web based filing system.

The EEOC Goes Electronic: FAQs on the EEOC’s New Electronic Pilot Program

Courtesy of Fisher & Phillips LLP

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently rolled out a pilot program to electronically notify employers of new charges filed against them. Instead of mailing the Notice of Charge of Discrimination form through conventional means, the EEOC is rolling out a new system that will notify an employer of a pending charge and allow an employer to respond to the charge through an online portal.

This new system is catching a lot of employers by surprise, and has resulted in many questions. Fisher & Phillips has developed a list of Frequently Asked Questions to aid employers in understanding this new pilot program.

What is this new system?
The EEOC is piloting a new electronic system involving an online portal called ACT Digital. If a new Charge of Discrimination is filed against you, the EEOC will email you notice of the new Charge and invite you to download a copy through the portal. 

Phase I of the project only allows employers a channel of communication with the EEOC about the Charge. Charging Parties are not yet allowed electronic access. In this first phase, upon consenting to certain terms and conditions, you are able to:

• view and download the Charge;
• review an invitation to mediate and respond accordingly;
• submit a Position Statement to the EEOC; and
• provide or verify company contact information, including the designation of a legal representative.

The EEOC has indicated that employers will also be able to use ACT Digital to communicate with the EEOC regarding extensions, inquiries, and other Charge-related issues. It seems this option may already be operational in some EEOC offices.

Where is the EEOC implementing ACT Digital?
The EEOC is rolling out ACT Digital in waves. The first wave began in early May 2015 and included EEOC offices in San Francisco and Charlotte. Earlier this summer, the EEOC released the program in a second wave of offices, which included Denver, Detroit, Indianapolis, and Phoenix. The EEOC’s goal is to implement ACT Digital in all of its 53 offices by October 2015.

How will we first receive notice?
The EEOC will send an email containing a Charge notification to an employer’s representative. The EEOC might obtain this email address from the Charging Party, or may obtain it from past email communications with those businesses already in the EEOC’s system.

Note that this could result in a manager or supervisor receiving notice of a Charge outside his or her own department or area. We are still checking to see if the EEOC will allow employers to proactively designate an email address where all notices to the company should be sent.

Must employers use this system?
This is the most common question we’ve received so far. The short answer is no – for now. Employers are currently not required to use ACT Digital during the pilot period of implementation. Note that if you do respond to the initial email, you may be creating an obligation to use the system going forward, thereby limiting your position with regard to how the Charge is handled.

However, the EEOC is transitioning to an entirely electronic format and, as a practical matter, all employers will likely be required to use this electronic system in the future.

What if the notification email is blocked by a firewall or spam folder?
The EEOC’s notification procedure includes some “fail-safes” to ensure you do not miss notifications of pending Charges. For example, the EEOC may send a hard copy of the Charge if the online portal is not accessed by the employer within approximately 10 days after the notice email is sent.

Can the Charge be viewed by the public?
No, with one exception. Each Charge has a unique portal access that you will use for the life of the case. Therefore, only people with access through the unique portal address will be able to access ACT Digital to view the Charge and your Position Statement. At this time, even the Charging Party does not have access to the online portal.

The one exception – which has always been the case – is that the public may request Charge files under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The EEOC has stated that it will continue to follow its current protocols and federal regulations in responding to FOIA requests (which typically do not allow for access to the Charge while the matter is pending).

Similarly, the unique portals will close after a period of time. We do not know for sure, but it is believed the portals will be deactivated 90 to 100 days after the EEOC closes the file. Because the portals expire, you should download and retain all necessary files and documents related to the Charge if they use the electronic system.

Will state human affairs commissions use ACT Digital?
At this time, the EEOC has not indicated whether state human affairs commissions will be utilizing the ACT Digital system.

What will Phase II look like?
The EEOC has released very little information about Phase II and any speculation as to what is in the pipeline is just that – speculation. With that caveat, there are a few likely next moves.

We expect the EEOC will open the portal to Charging Parties so they may file and monitor their Charges online. It is unknown, however, whether the portals will be kept separate or combined. In the future, the EEOC may also maintain a database of the employer’s prior Charges, as opposed to deactivating the portal.

What should we do immediately?
Because you could receive notice of a new Charge tomorrow, you should instruct all of your supervisors and managers today to immediately contact the HR department or in-house counsel if they get an email from the EEOC. Just as in the past you instructed them to forward on any hard copy EEOC Charge received in the mail, the same rule should apply for electronic notices.

You should take it one step further in this digital age: counsel your managers not only to forward on EEOC emails to proper company channels without responding, but also to refrain from downloading the Charge or even clicking anywhere on the email.

Phase I of the ACT Digital rollout should not drastically affect how you respond to EEOC Charges. In fact, it might make communication with the EEOC easier. As additional phases are rolled out, however, this could change. Stay tuned for more updates.

Do you want to learn more?

Fisher & Phillips LLP is hosting a free, 20-minute webinar on this subject on Thursday, September 10, 2015, at 12:00pm EST. You can register for “EEOC Goes Electronic: FAQs On EEOC’s New Electronic Pilot Program” by visiting their website (www.laborlawyers.com) and looking under the “Events” tab.

New Guidance On Wellness Programs

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued proposed new rules  clarifying its stance on the interplay between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and employer wellness programs. Officially called a “notice of proposed rulemaking” or NPRM, the new rules propose changes to the text of the EEOC’s ADA regulations and to the interpretive guidance explaining them. 

If adopted, the NPRM will provide employers guidance on how they can use financial incentives or penalties to encourage employees to participate in wellness programs without violating the ADA, even if the programs include disability-related inquiries or medical examinations.  This should be welcome news for employers, having spent nearly the past six years in limbo as a result of the EEOC’s virtual radio silence on this question.

A Brief History: How Did We Get Here?
In 1990, the ADA was enacted to protect individuals with ADA-qualifying disabilities from discrimination in the workplace.  Under the ADA, employers may conduct medical examinations and obtain medical histories as part of their wellness programs so long as employee participation in them is voluntary.  The EEOC confirmed in 2000 that it considers a wellness program voluntary, and therefore legal, where employees are neither required to participate in it nor penalized for non-participation.

Then, in 2006, regulations were issued that exempted wellness programs from the nondiscrimination requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) so long as they met certain requirements.  These regulations also authorized employers for the first time to offer financial incentives of up to 20% of the cost of coverage to employees to encourage them to participate in wellness programs. 

But between 2006 and 2009 the EEOC waffled on the legality of these financial incentives, stating that “the HIPAA rule is appropriate because the ADA lacks specific standards on financial incentives” in one instance, and that the EEOC was “continuing to examine what level, if any, of financial inducement to participate in a wellness program would be permissible under the ADA” in another.

Shortly thereafter, the 2010 enactment of President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which regulates corporate wellness programs, appeared to put this debate to rest.  The ACA authorized employers to offer certain types of financial incentives to employees so long as the incentives did not exceed 30% of the cost of coverage to employees.

But in the years following the ACA’s enactment, the EEOC restated that it had not in fact taken any position on the legality of financial incentives.  In the wake of this pronouncement, employers were left understandably confused and uncertain.  To alleviate these sentiments, several federal agencies banded together and jointly issued regulations that authorized employers to reward employees for participating in wellness programs, including programs that involved medical examinations or questionnaires.  These regulations also confirmed the previously set 30%–of-coverage ceiling and even provided for incentives of up to 50%of coverage for programs related to preventing or reducing the use of tobacco products. 

After remaining silent about employer wellness programs for nearly five years, in August 2014, the EEOC awoke from its slumber and filed its very first lawsuit targeting wellness programs, EEOC v. Orion Energy Systems, alleging that they violate the ADA.  In the following months, it filed similar suits against Flambeau, Inc., and Honeywell International, Inc.  In EEOC v. Honeywell International, Inc., the EEOC took probably its most alarming position on the subject to date, asserting that a wellness program violates the ADA even if it fully complies with the ACA.

What’s In The NPRM?
According to EEOC Chair Jenny Yang, the purpose of the EEOC’s NPRM is to reconcile HIPAA’s authorization of financial incentives to encourage participation in wellness programs with the ADA’s requirement that medical examinations and inquiries that are part of them be voluntary.  To that end, the NPRM explains:

• what an employee wellness program is;

• what it means for an employee  wellness program to be voluntary;

• what incentives employers may offer as part of a voluntary employee wellness program; and

• what requirements apply concerning notice and confidentiality of medical information obtained as  part of voluntary employee wellness programs.

Each of these parts of the NPRM is briefly discussed below.

What is an employee wellness program?
In general, the term “wellness program” refers to a program or activity offered by an employer to encourage its employees to improve their health and to reduce overall health care costs.  For instance, one program might encourage employees to engage in healthier lifestyles, such as exercising daily, making healthier diet choices, or quitting smoking.  Another might obtain medical information from them by asking them to complete health risk assessments or undergo a screening for risk factors. 

The NPRM defines wellness programs as programs that are reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease.  To meet this standard, programs must have a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing disease in, its participating employees.  The programs also must not be overly burdensome, a pretext for violating anti-discrimination laws, or highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease.

How is voluntary defined?
The NPRM contains several requirements that must be met in order for participation in wellness programs to be voluntary.  Specifically, employers may not:

• require employees to participate in a wellness program;

• deny or limit coverage or particular benefits for non-participation in a wellness program; or

• take any adverse action against employees for non-participation in a wellness program or failure to achieve certain health outcomes. 

Additionally, for wellness programs that are part of a group health plan, employers must provide a notice to employees clearly explaining what medical information will be obtained, how it will be used, who will receive it, restrictions on its disclosure, and the protections in place to prevent its improper disclosure.

What incentives may you offer?
The NPRM clarifies that the offer of limited incentives is permitted and will not render wellness programs involuntary.  Under the NPRM, the maximum allowable incentive employers can offer employees for participation in a wellness program or for achieving certain health results is 30% of the total cost of coverage to employees who participate in it.  The total cost of coverage is the amount that the employer and the employee pay, not just the employee’s share of the cost.  The maximum allowable penalty employers may impose on employees who do not participate in the wellness program is the same. 

What about confidentiality?
The NPRM does not change any of the exceptions to the confidentiality provisions in the EEOC’s existing ADA regulations.  It does, however, add a new subsection that explains that employers may only receive information collected by wellness programs in aggregate form that does not disclose, and is not likely to disclose, the identity of the employees participating in it, except as may be necessary to administer the plan. 

Additionally, for a wellness program that is part of a group health plan, the health information that identifies an individual is “protected health information” and therefore subject to HIPAA.  HIPAA mandates that employers maintain certain safeguards to protect the privacy of such personal health information and limits the uses and disclosure of it.

Keep in mind that the NPRM revisions discussed above only clarify the EEOC’s stance regarding how employers can use financial incentives to encourage their employees to participate in employer wellness programs without violating the ADA.  It does not relieve employers of their obligation to ensure that their wellness programs comply with other anti-discrimination laws as well.

Is This The Law?
The NPRM is just a notice that alerts the public that the EEOC intends to revise its ADA regulations and interpretive guidance as they relate to employer wellness programs.  It is also an open invitation for comments regarding the proposed revisions.  Anyone who would like to comment on the NPRM must do so by June 19, 2015.  After that, the EEOC will evaluate all of the comments that it receives and may make revisions to the NPRM in response to them.  The EEOC then votes on a final rule, and once it is approved, it will be published in the Federal Register.

Since the NPRM is just a proposed rule, you do not have to comply with it just yet.  But our advice is that you bring your wellness program into compliance with the NPRM for a few reasons.  For one, it is very unlikely that the EEOC, or a court, would fault you for complying with the NPRM until the final rule is published.  Additionally, many of the requirements that are set forth in the NPRM are already required under currently existing law.  Thus, while waiting for the EEOC to issue its final rule, in the very least, you should make sure that you do not:

• require employees to participate in wellness programs;

• deny health insurance coverage to employees for non-participation in wellness programs; or

• take adverse employment action against employees for non-participation in wellness programs or for failure  to achieve certain health outcomes.

In addition you should provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities to enable them to participate in wellness programs and obtain any incentives offered (e.g., if an employer has a deaf employee and attending a diet and exercise class is part of its wellness program, then the employer should provide a sign language interpreter to enable the deaf employee to participate in the class); and ensure that any medical information is maintained in a confidential manner.

Unwittingly Asking Improper Interview Questions

Job seekers are not the only ones who may say something inappropriate or botch a question during a job interview. A recent survey by CareerBuilder found that approximately 20% of hiring managers reported that they have asked an interview question only to find out later that asking the question possibly violated the law.

It is important for both interviewer and interviewee to understand what employers  have (and don’t have) a legal right to ask in a job interview.  Even though their intention may be harmless, hiring managers could be putting themselves at risk for legal action by asking certain questions, that some could argue are discriminatory.

A number of hiring managers responding to the poll said they didn’t know if it was legal to ask job applicants about arrest records. Attorneys familiar with the issue agreed that asking about applicants’ criminal records can be tricky for hiring managers.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance in 2012 designed to help employers understand what they can and can’t ask regarding criminal records.

The EEOC guidance states that an “arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred, and a job exclusion based on an arrest, in itself, is not job-related and consistent with business necessity. However, an employer may make an employment decision based on the conduct underlying an arrest if the conduct makes the individual unfit for the position in question.”

Asking job applicants about their criminal records has become something of a hot employment topic as a growing number of states and municipalities have enacted “ban-the-box” laws that prohibit employers from asking on job applications if job seekers have been convicted of a crime.

Ban-the-box laws generally allow employers to conduct background screenings and ask about convictions later in the employment process—such as during job interviews. However, the constantly changing legal landscape on what employers can and can’t ask on applications and during interviews can confuse and frustrate many hiring managers.

Generally, the best policy is to avoid questions about applicants’ age, marital status, political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, religion and family. Some questions that can be legal and seem relevant to the job can be problematic by the way the question is posed. For example, the question “Are you a U.S. citizen?” might seem reasonable if a hiring manager is trying to determine if an applicant is eligible to work in the U.S. However, the better and more legally prudent question is: “Are you eligible to work in the United States?” Asking about a person’s citizenship status could reveal information about ethnic and national origin that could expose employers to complaints of bias.

EEOC Report 1 Due by September 30th

If you employed more than 100 people in the preceding calendar year, you are required to complete and submit your EEOC Report 1 (Survey) by September 30th. You should have received a reminder letter via mail from the EEOC in August also with the link to file the report online.

 

Please contact our office for information about the EEOC Report 1 or for the link to the EEOC’s web based filing system.